Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 358 494 CS 508 196
AUTHOR Coutu, Lisa M.; Hendrix, Katherine GraceTITLE The Socio-Political Implications of John J. Gumperz'
Interactional Analytic Approach.PUB DATE Feb 93NOTE 36p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Western States Communication Association (64th,Albuquerque, NM, February 12-15, 1993).
PUB TYPE Speec%es/Conferercn Papers (150) Viewpoints(Opinion/Positi)n Papers, Essays, etc.) (120)Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Blacks; *Communication Research; Ethnography; Higher
Education; Interaction; Interpersonal Communication;Racial Differences; *Sociolinguistics
IDENTIFIERS African Americans; Group Theory; *Gumperz (John J);*Theory Development
ABSTRACT
John J. Gumperz' interactional analysis goes beyondtraditional work in discourse analysis, conversation analysis, andethnography and may, ultimately, lead to the development of newsociolinguistic theory regarding problematic interaction. Thelikelihood of the development of theory will be significantlyimpacted by Gumperz' ability to: (1) incorporate the impact of raceon interactions; and (2) re-evaluate the significance of a speechcommunity's way of speaking and the corresponding costs associatedwith adaptation. Gumperz fails to address socio-politicalimplications of the negotiation process between dominant andnon-dominant interlocutors, as characterized by the differencebetween his conceptualization of "ways of speaking" and that of DellHymes. Also, he does not recognize the presence of othercontextualization cues which occur in interaction such as race,gender, and age. As an example, examining the role of race forAfrican Americans in social interaction indicates that race situatesthe interaction between Whites and African-Americans, and precedesverbal communication cues. As a result, race should be an integralaspect of theories associated with problematic interaction.(Twenty-eight references are attached.) (RS)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************
The Socio-Political Implications
of John J. Gumperz'
Interactional Analytic Approach
Lisa M. Coutu and Katherine Grace Hendrix
University of Washington
"PERM'SSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
INLek
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RcSOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"
k.so Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association(WSCA) Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico in February 1993.
Gumperz
1
U.S. DE'ARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
his document has been reproduceo asreceived from the person or organizationoncrwmgd
r Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality
Points of new or opinions slated in this doCument do not necessarily represent officiaiOE RI position or policy
:::T. ri'un' MIME
Gumperz
2
Abstract
In this paper, we indicate that Gumperz' (1982a, 1982b)
interactional analysis goes beyond traditional work in discourse
analysis, conversation analysis, and ethnography. His work goes
beyond the creation of taxonomies and may, ultimately, lead to
the development of new sociolinguistic theory regarding
problematic interaction. The likelihood of the development of
theory will be significantly impacted by Gumperz' ability to:
1)incorporate the impact of race on interactions, and 2) re-
evaluate the significance of a speech community's way of speaking
and the corresponding costs associated with adaptation.
Our focus is on the shortcomings of Gumperz' research
program as explicated in Discourse Strategies (1982a) and
Language and Social Identity (1982b). Specifically, we note his
failure to address socio-political implications of the
negotiation process between dominant and non-dominant
interlocutors, as characterized by the difference between his
conceptualization of "ways of speaking" and that of Dell Hymes.
Also, we note that he does not recognize the presence of other
contextualization cues which occur in interaction such as race,
gender, and age.
As an example, we examine the role of race for African-
Americans in social interaction as a contextualization cue. Our
primary premise is that race situates the interaction between
Gumperz
3
whites and African-Americans, and precedes verbal communication
cues. As a result, race should be an integral aspect of theories
associated with problematic interaction.
Gumperz
4
The Socio-Political Implications
of John J. Gumperz'
Interactional Analytic Approach
Introduction
Approximately a decade ago, John J. Gumperz initiated an
investigative approach to communicative interaction which he
believed exceeded the groundwork laid by researchers in the areas
of linguistics, conversation analysis, and ethnography. His
particular approach, explicated primarily in Discourse Strategies
(1982a) and Language and Social Identity (1982b), continues to
inspire research utilizing (Erickson & Shultz, 1982; Murray,
1991; Yamada, 1990), expanding (Chick, 1990; Tyler & Davies,
1990), and criticizing (Ensink, 1987) his methodological
framework.
Gumperz (1979, 1982a, 1982b) acknowledges the significant
contributions of the linguistic, conversation analysis, and
ethnographic "traditions" to the body of sociolinguistic
knowledge, but maintains that his interactional analytic approach
moves beyond these three traditions. Gumperz' approach
investigates what happens when people from two heterogeneous
communicative systems are brought together, rather than the more
traditional focus on interaction within homogeneous groups.. His
ultimate goal is to provide an analysis illustrating how
cooperative communication leads to harmony and understanding.
r-
Gumperz
5
Gumperz maintains that a sociolinguistic theory addressing
communicative interaction must explore the linguistic and socio-
cultural knowledge needed to elicit conversational involvement,
must move beyond existing grammars and ethnographies, must
address degrees of differentiation rather than focusing on
starkly dichotomous groups, and must be speaker focused. Gumperz
creates taxonomies based on elements previously conceived of as
"surface factors of language" such as code-switching and prosody.
The creation of these taxonomies, he proposes, is the first step
toward the development of a sociolinguistic theory addressing
miscommunication.
Taxonomies help one to label phenomena. Taxonomies might
inspire, and help to summarize descriptive studies, but they do
not provide explanations of relationships among phenomena.
Theories, on the other hand, inspire and summarize verificational
studies which test specific hypotheses (Deutsch, 1952;
Littlejohn, 1989; Zetterberg, 1963, 1965). There is a three-
stage methodology associated with Gumperz' approach which
encompasses noting co-occurrence patterns, defining a behavior
which conforms to such a pattern, and designating the behavior's
function and effect within the interaction.
An analysis of Gumperz' investigation of prosody provides
one illustration of his move toward the development of a
taxonomy. When investigating prosody, Gumperz is interested in
Gumperz
6
identifying what information prosodic cues provide during
conversational exchange as well as how they assist interlocutors
in initiating and sustaining such exchanges. As he seeks answers
to these questions, he defines the role prosody plays in
conversation (e.g., turn-taking, chunking streams of talk for
effective decoding, etc.) and, ultimately, constructs a taxonomy.
The creation of a taxonomy assists in filling the gaps in the
extant literature, constructing an explanation accounting for the
array of variables operating during conversational exchange, and
providing information of use to interlocutors in reducing the
likelihood of miscommunication.
Although Gumperz is a sociolinguist, the aim of his work
falls squarely within the domain of communication scholars and,
therefore, merits evaluation for its contribution to the
communication discipline. In light of this, the purpose of this
paper is to explore his work in relation to the study of
communication. The first part of this paper will further
highlight the interactional analytic approach by contrasting
Gumperz' discussion of contextualization cues and ways of
speaking with that of Hymes. The second part will note the
socio-political implications of the interactional analytic
approach by discussing Gumperz' expectation of adaptation on the
part of minority groups and his failure to acknowledge the impact
of non-linguistic cues other than prosody (i.e. race, aye, and
Pi
Gumperz
7
gender). Finally, we will use the African-American experience as
a means to illustrate how race complicates Gumperz' notion of
conversational negotiation.
Interactional Analytic Approach
Contextualizatior, cues. Gumperz is particularly interested in
miscommunication that occurs in intercultural interaction. He
defines communication as a social activity involving the
coordination of two or more individuals where communication an
intentional, planned, coordinated effort signalling involvement
rather than "mere talk" involving the ability to produce
sentences. The basic premise underlying his explanation of
miscommunication is that interlocutors do not share the
background assumptions that make possible accurate interpretation
of each other's message behaviors. In other words,' interlocutors
engaging in unsuccessful communication often have different
communicative and social histories, different ways of speaking,
and different ideas about how to communicate. Interaction,
successful or not, is influenced by a set of contextualization
cues brought to it by participants.
Gumperz is interested in what is created between two or more
individuals in a communicative exchange. How do they come to
understand each other, how do they allude to shared ;Jackgrounds,
values and experiences, and what happens when the unexpected
occurs? Gumperz stresses the role of conversational inference in
Gumperz
8
engaging in successful communication. He suggests we look at
many aspects of discourse in investigating the misunderstanding
that can occur between people of different cultures, even when
those people are speaking the same language. If, somewhere
during the interaction, conversational 3.1ferences are not
accurate, misunderstanding results. With this misunderstanding
comes the breakdown of communication.
Eliciti:.g mutual cooperation requires the ability to send
appropriate cues to a fellow interlocutor so that the nature of
the activity being proposed, the behavior and speaking style
being suggested, and the relationship being characterized are
accurately inferred from the cues provided. Gumperz d -aws upon
the work of Paul Grice and the notion of implicature to develop
further his line of thought regarding the process of eliciting
cooperation. According to Grice (1975), individuals who converse
engage in an unspoken contractual agreement evolving around four
maxims: quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Violations of
any of the four maxims (or a combination of them) signal
differences between the interlocutors capable of producing
miscommunication and, after repeated violations,
misunderstandings. The end result is the inability to elicit the
cooperation and involvement necessary to achieve one's goal(s).
Gumperz uses these four maxims as a framework to determine the
social assumptions and expectations of interlocutors .1.1
Gumperz
9
problematic interactions.
Gumperz extends the four maxims associated with Grice's
"Cooperative Principle" (Grice, 1975) by identifying specific
discourse strategies used to comply with the unstated maxims and,
unlike Grice, notes the existence of different standards for
acceptable behavior depending upon the speech community.
Examples of discourse strategies used to transmit cues to a
fellow interlocutor include: prosody, alternation, code-
switching, word borrowing, semantics, syntax, etc. It is the use
of appropriate cues which enhance the likelihood of accurate
inference which, ultimately, assists in the achievement of one's
goal(s). Thus, conversational interaction is a complex process
quite dependent upon the communicative competence of the
interlocutors and their ability not simply to know the words, but
when and how to use them appropriately (Hymes, 1974) along with
the proper use of paralinguistic cues. Gumperz sees control over
this range of communicative strategies and awareness of their
signalling potential (alluding to shared history, values, and
mutual obligations) as paramount, and collects data which
contribute to the body of sociolinguistic knowledge.
Along with lexical and syntactic options, Gumperz groups
prosody, code-switching, co-occurrence expectations, and
formulaic expressicns together under the heading of
contextualization cues. They form the background information and
i0
Gumperz
10
resources interlocutors bring to interaction. Gumperz notes that
the store of information interlocutors bring to discourse is
largely a function of their previous communicative experience.
Through their experience, interlocutors build a repertoire of
cues that they use to signal meaning in discourse. When
interlocutors share a common background, they are more apt also
to share a common store of cues and meanings and, therefore,
their communication with each other is more likely to be
satisfying.
Particularly illustrative of how one language can be used
and interpi.eted differently by people in different contexts is
Gumperz' discussion of code- and style-switching. People
speaking the same language.can use it in quite diverse ways. For
instance, the various dialects of English can be looked at as
different codes. Although in one situation it may be appropriate
for a speaker to use Black English rather than Standard English,
it is probable that, for this same speaker, Black English will
not be appropriate in all contexts. Knowledge of when to speak
in a given code is an important factor in attaining successful
communication. The fact that the appropriateness of each type of
code is context governed reinforces Gumperz' notion of
communication as a context bound phenomenon.
Gumperz also delineates the role of co-occurrence rules,
rules that govern what is appropriate in a given interaction
Gumperz
11
considering the other linguistic and paralinguistic features
present, in the maintenance of interaction. Rules of co-
occurrence are an important resource when determining the
appropriateness of code-switching. Code-switching may be
expected in certain situations, but completely inappropriate in
others. The roles of co-occurrence rules, code-switching, and
context can be seen when examining formulaic expressions in which
particular meanings are exchanged between participants using
known sequences of utterances, the understanding of which
presupposes shared cultural knowledge. Gumperz furnishes an
example of this when discussing an incident in which a Black
student trained in interviewing procedures goes to the home of a
Black couple to administer a survey to the woman who lives there.
When the interviewer is greeted by the woman's husband, the
interviewer responds in a very businesslike ma7Lner to a comment
that required him to be aware of, and to provide, the appropriate
cultural response. His response did not follow the formulaic
exchange that was expected by the husband and the remainder of
the interaction at the house was consequently stilted. After the
incident, the student remarked that in trying to act
professionally, he had failed to recognize the importance of the
comment made to him by the woman's husband (1982a, p. 134).
Realizing and ,expressing the expected response given the context
and, therefore, displaying shared cultural background and
Gumperz
12
knowledge, presumably would have facilitated tha success of the
rest of the interaction.
Prosody is also significant in determining the meaning of a
participant's utterance. When looking at prosody,
the empirical cues involved are ordinarily studied
under three general headings: (a) pitch contours or
intonation proper; (b) sentence stress involving the
setting off of particular utterance segments by means
of loudness or duration; (c) paralinguistic phenomena
of pitch register, tempo and overall loudness (1982a,
p. 107) .
Knowing a language does not necessarily mean knowing the prosodic
norms of the language. To illustrate this point, Gumperz uses
examples from interaction between American or British English
speakers and West Indian English speakers. The two groups of
speakers stress different words in discourse and, as is often the
case, the stress has meaning to the interlocutors. The meaning
the stress carries varies between groups. It is this variation
in meaning that often leads to misinterpretation and
m4scommunication in exchanges and, ultimately, to the
rc...inforcement of stereotypes each group has about the other.
For instance, syntactic, lexical, and prosodic knowledge are
required for a participant to make accurate inferences.
Ways of Speaking. The premise that miscommunication results from
Gumperz
13
lack of understanding of various cultures is an important outcome
of Gumperz' work. He emphasizes the importance of understanding
participants' various communicative styles in intercultural
communication. He maintains that by attaining this understanding
and taking it into consideration in interaction, communication
problems in intercultural contact can be solved.
Understanding can be realized in two ways. First,
participants can come from similar backgrounds and already
possess a shared world view, a shared idea of what is to occur
when they meet. Second, participants can make a conscious effort
to understand that they each come from different backgrounds and
must take their differences into consideration when negotiating
goals of interaction. Awareness of the contextualization cues
present in interaction and the ways of speaking the cues comprise
can facilitate understanding of interlocutors' behavior.
Gumperz emphasizes that interlocutors from diverse cultures
can have different ways of speaking and that the dissimilarities
can increase the chances of miscommunication. He focuses on the
ways of speaking of people involved in interaction in order to
pinpoint where misunderstanding occurs. Gumperz proposes the
following conceptualization of "ways of speaking":
By "ways of speaking" we refer to the actual
linguistic cues used through which information...is
signalled. This level includes grammar and lexicon as
Gumperz
14
well as prosody, pausing, idioms, and other formulaic
utterances. Our basic assumption is that in
conversation we simultaneously interpret and
communicate at several levels of generality (1982b, p.
13) .
Throughout his research, Gumperz presents examples of people with
different ways of speaking failing to understand each other.
Tnese failures often occur in situations where understanding is
crucial, i.e., in a job interview.
The term "ways of speaking" was formulated by Hymes in 1974
in an essay by that name. According to Hymes, ways of speaking
are composed of means of speech and speech economy (Hymes, 1974).
The means of speech parallel Gumperz' contextualization cues as
features of speakers' styles. Speech economy, however, includes
all of the available speech resources in the speech community,
including the norms of interaction and the underlying attitudes
and beliefs of the community, areas that Gumperz does not
incorporate fully in his suggestions for solving intercultural
miscommunication.
Unlike Hymes, Gumperz does not underscore the centrality of
the cultural function a way of speaking performs for an
individual as a member of a community or the underlying attitudes
and beliefs a way of speaking signifies. Gumperz does
acknowledge the cultural significance of ways of speaking when he
Gumperz
15
states that
it is commonly argued that where intelligibility is not in
question, language differences serve primarily to mark
social identity and are perpetuated in accordance with
established norms and traditions (1982a, p. 39).
However, his main concern lies in discerning how miscommunication
that results from diverse ways of speaking can be avoided rather
than discovering the meanings that ways of speaking have for
interlocutors.
To this end, Gumperz illustrates and explains how
differences in contextualization cues lead to miscommunication
between people. He establishes the premise that sharing the same
expectations of conversation is not a given when people interact;
rather, it is a function of similar communicative experience,
socio-cultural background, shared history, and culture.
Hymes, on the other hand, is not so concerned with the
miscommunication that can occur between people who have different
ways of speakag as he is with the meaning a way of speaking has
for particular people. Although Gumperz recognizes that people
are more apt to share common ways of speaking if they also share
socio-cultural background, history, and culture, Hymes focuses on
how shared socio-cultural background, history, and culture are
evident in and celebrated in a group's way of speaking. Hymes
makes central the ways in which speech can help elucidate a
Gumperz
16
culture's way of being whereas Gumperz makes central the goal of
easing communication between cultures by altering ways of
speaking.
Socio-political Implications
There are many questions left unaddressed in Gumperz' work.
Who is required to give up what in interaction? What is gained
in negotiation by the two parties involved? What are the
incentives for the dominant group to compromise given that it is
the non-dominant group that is bound to benefit from that
negotiation? Finally, what is the price that interlocutors must
pay for smoother interpersonal communication to occur between
members of different groups?
These questions begin to address the socio-political
implications of Gumperz' work. They are also difficult to answer
in light of the existing social structures in which all
communication occurs. Nevertheless, without the explicit
recognition of the cultural significance of ways of speaking.
Gumperz addresses a simpler pragmatic problem with no cultural
implications except for more successful practical intercultural
communication. With the addition of Hymes' notion of the
cultural significance of ways of speaking, the move is no longer
so simple or so innocently practical. Rather, change in
discourse is only possible at the expense of some change of life
for particular people, some loss of cultural identity, values,
1P`s6
Gumperz
attitudes and beliefs signified by their speech.
The lack of emphasis on the cultural significance of ways of
speaking has considerable impact in determining ways to help
people of different backgrounds understand each other. Many of
the examples provided by Gumperz and his colleagues show a non-
dominant person trying to obtain something from someone in power.
For instance, West Indian English speakers are featured being
interviewed by native English speakers for jobs. When the
miscommunication occurs, it is the West Indian English speaker
who suffers the consequences. Specifically, it is the West
Indian English speaker who does not get the job.
The resources of a community, such as jobs, are more apt to
be accessed by people who know and enact the dominant way of
being of the community. In Gumperz' model, it seems that the way
for people to procure community resources is to modify the way
they interact. Someone must change his or her way of speaking in
order to gain the resources of the community. Gumperz' explicit
suggestion is that participants should come to mutual
understanding of each others' ways of speaking and negotiate
mutually satisfying goals of interaction. However, because it is
the dominant culture that holds the key to community resources,
those who are in the less well represented cultures seem left to
change or adapt to the dominant speakers' style in order to gain
access to the resources. This implicit suggestion contradicts
Gumperz
18
Gump,:rz' idea of negotiation in interaction and instead implies
total adaptation by one party.
Adaptation, however, is not such a terrible matter if ways
of speaking are defined as Gumperz defines them. A simple change
in prosody or word choice, for example, would be easy for most
people to accomplish and would facilitate successful
communication. However, if ways of speaking are defined as Hymes
suggests, adaptation can be devastating to members of cultures.
Considering adaptation in respect to Hymes' work enables us to
see some additional implications of changing discourse. That is,
if the way of speaking in a community serves to maintain the
social identity of speakers and is a culturally significant
activity, then changing the way of speaking necessarily changes
the way of life of the interlocutors.
Because it seems more the responsibility of non-dominant
cultures to adapt to dominant cultures in order to obtain
community resources, it also seems that the cultural loss will be
most evident in the non-dominant cultures. The focus of Gumperz'
research is how speakers of the "minority" language can adapt
their language to approximate patterns of the "dominant" language
while merely asking for awareness of differences on the part of
dominant" language speakers. Throughout the explication and
rationalization of his proposed research program, Gumperz
implicitly addresses a socio-political agenda that values
Gumperz
19
dominant cultures while simultaneously devaluing others.
Gumperz' approach is a pragmatic one that attempts to solve
the problem of miscommunication by suggesting that people learn
to speak in the appropriate way in order to interact successfully
with each other. This approach succeeds in fostering smoother
daily communication between people of diZferent cultures.
Gumperz promotes the idea that all people need to understand that
diverse rules for interaction can be brought to an exchange and
he encourages people to adjust their speech to accommodate
differences. However, in the cases Gumperz himself presents, it
seems that the only people who would benefit economically from
such change would be those in subordinate cultures. What, then,
is the incentive for people in dominant cultures to change their
ways of speaking?
Gumperz does not take into consideration the overall power
structure involved in interaction in any context. In so doing,
he does not acknowledge the importance of cues such as race, age,
and gender in determining the course of conversation. Rather, he
sees a more neutral starting point, where the problem is more
about people as individuals not getting along than about the
social structure. Gumperz' sociolinguistic approach can be seen
as maintaining a conservative stance based on the desire to
elicit harmony and cooperation without significantly altering the
social status quo.
Gumperz
20
Gumperz provides knowledge to aid individuals in adapting to
the requirements of the dominant American or British society and,
thereby, to gain access to the economic benefits a system has to
offer, e.g., jobs. However, he does not challenge the system
which dictates what serves as acceptable requirements for upward
mobility within a society. Unlike critical theorists, Gumperz
desires that the knowledge which is gained be used to promote
harmony rather than an understanding of how such language creates
and maintains oppression. Regardless of whether distinctions
along racial, age, or gender lines are consciously acknowledged,
they are a present factor in interaction. Race will be used as
an example to illustrate the sociopolitical implications of
Gumperz' work.
Race and the African-American Experience
They consciously choose their speech, their walk, their mode
of dress and car; they trim their hair lest a mountainous
Afro set them apart. They know they have a high visibility,
and they realize that their success depends not only on
their ability, but also on their white colleagues' feeling
comfortable with them (Campbell cited in Fordham, 1988,
p. 60)
Race: A Non-linquistic Contextualization Cue. Gumperz provides a
meticulous analysis of contextualization cues which occur during
interaction and which serve to "frame the discourse." However,
Gumperz
21
he fails to address several other important non-linguistic
contextualization cues which co-exist along with language-
specifically age, gender, and race. For instance, he notes in
the postscript to Discourse Strategies (1982a, p. 210) that
historical and cultural factors may influence interaction, but
the actual text does not address the impact of race, and the
prejudice and hatred it can elicit between heterogeneous
interlocutors.
In the introduction to Language and Social Identity, Gumperz
indicates:
The key point of our argument in this book is that social
identity and ethnicity are in large part established and
maintained through language (1982b, p. 7).
He then proceeds to discuss conceptualizations of the old and new
ethnicity. At this point, it becomes apparent that Gumperz does
not fully grasp the interactional complexities for particular
populations he has studied. For Blacks in the U.S. and U.K., for
example, there is no old and new ethnicity - there is only
Blackness and the corresponding societal stereotypes associated
with being Black. For Asians, living within the U.S. and
possessing noticeable epicanthic eyefold, there is no old and new
ethnicity. For dark-complexed Mexicans and Native Americans,
living within the U.S., there is no old and new ethnicity. For
members of these populations, most heterogeneous communicative
Gumperz
22
encounters are first marked by physical features, in particular
skin color, prior to actual verbal exchange. Depending upon the
society in question, race may be the dominant contextualization
cue.
Isajiw (1974) notes the absence of explicit definit...ons in
the work of social scientists "dealing with one or another aspect
of ethnicity" as well as the absence of rationales for not
providing such definitions. Gumperz, too, does not define
ethnicity for his readers, but his discussion of the old and new
ethnicity can be seen as an indicator that he agrees with a view
of ethnicity which de-emphasizes race while emphasizing a
previous history of immigrant (European) status.
Implicit within Gumperz' interactional approach is the
belief that both interlocutors begin the verbal exchange with a
base of neutrality or equal footing. Keith Chick's (1990)
analysis of English-speaking Zulu and native English-speaking
South African whites extends Gumperz' approach by incorporating
face needs. Chick incorporates face needs as an additional tool
once he becomes aware of the status differences between his
interlocutors. Therefore, during Chick's research it becomes
apparent that a base of neutrality cannot be assumed.
Race and Social Identity. Individuals from certain races cannot
alter social identity by altering their language use to the
extent accomplishable by individuals of European descent. When
Gumperz
23
descent rules are not applied, race is assigned by the "actual
variety of visible intergrades" (Pettigrew, 1979). In many
societies, "social race" relies on common socio-cultural features
and descent lines, though the actual physical phenotypes among
group members may vary significantly. However, in the United
States, a "social fiction" has been created by assigning children
of mixed marriages to the lower-ranking parent regardless of
physical phenotypes.
A sociobiological approach to behavior indicates that
animals are social to the extent that cooperation is mutually
beneficial. Animals are also nepotistic, preferring kin over
non-kin and close kin over distant kin. In the case of humans,
race and ethnicity are viewed as extensions of kinship
representing attenuated forms of kin selection. van den Berghe
(1978) believes that prior to mass migration, imperialism, and
colonial expansion, groups distinguished themselves from their
neighbors based on salient cultural differences. Physical
criteria were salient only to the extent they did an effective
and easy job of discriminating kin and non-kin. However, with
colonial expansion and mass migration, it became possible to make
fairly accurate kin judgments based upon skin color.
In some countries, such as the U.S., physical phenotypes
serve to "situate" the conversational interaction and to
establish the relative roles of the interlocutors. Skin color,
2 .a
Gumperz
24
therefore, is a contextualization cue which operates prior to
actual verbal interaction. Physical phenotypes are so salient
that only knowledge of the actual racial lineage of an
interlocutor can override the perceptions formed based upon
physical features. Therefore, although an interlocutor possesses
European white physical phenotypes, the very knowledge of African
heritage institutes a default system of perception based upon the
interlocutor's "subordinate minority" heritage (Cayton & Drake,
1946) .
Identity Options Available to African-Americans. Considering
Gumperz' suggested linguistic and prosodic adaptations, four
options are available to African-Americans 1) refusing to
adapt, 2) integrating the linguistic and prosodic cues of Black
and white culture (biculturalism), 3) overlooking their African
heritage while becoming raceless, and 4) denying their African
heritage while adopting white culture completely in a "passing"
adaptive move. The latter option, of course, is limited to
African-Americans with physical phenotypes generally associated
with the white population and whose African heritage can be
successfully hidden. For most African-Americans "passing" (at
least for white) is not a viable option; thus, racelessness
represents the furthest position they can move along the social
identity risk continu'm created to visually represent this
paper's position. Visually, these four options can be
Gumperz
25
represented as follows:
African-American Social Identity Risk Continuum
REFUSAL TO ADAPT--BICULTURALISM--RACELESSNESS--PASSING
"Overlooking" African heritage will be used to characterize the
racelessness adaptive option whereas "denial" will characterize
and distinguish the passing option from one of racelessness.
Fordham (1988) notes that racelessness involves taking on
attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics which are not common to
African-Americans in an attempt to "circumvent the stigma
attached to being Black, and to achieve vertical mobility" (p.
58). A key characteristic of the raceless persona is denial of
the existence of racism as an endemic aspect of life in the
United States.
The left half of the continuum consists of options
associated with refusal to adapt to white cultural patterns of
behavior (including ways of speaking) and biculturalism. Rose,
Rothman, and Wilson (1973) describe younger Blacks living at the
poverty line as separatists who are unwilling to integrate into
white society. Ogbu (1990) describes African-Americans as
involuntary minorities rather than immigrant minorities. He goes
further to note that acquiring Enc27.ish for the immigrant minority
is akin to a white American acquiring French prior to visiting
France. Learning a new language is not equated with giving up
group identity but, rather, is associated with upward mobility.
Gumperz
26
Involuntary minorities (such as African-Americans and Native
American Indians) do not see cultural differences (including
white English) as simply barriers to overcome but, rather, see
such differences as markers of group identity which should be
maintained.
Refusal to adapt to a-id assimilate the dominant white
culture is partly attributable to: 1) a recognition of
discrimination (e.g., employment ceilings) still faced by
African-Americans who are willing to adapt, and 2) an oppressive
societal system which creates inequitable conditions making
ascension and acceptance more difficult for particular groups.
In the former case, African-Americans see no reason to compromise
or sacrifice their identity for the unlikely possibility of
economic success and acceptance by whites. In the latter case,
African-Americans see no hope and are socialized by the dominant
group to believe they are incapable of complex cognitive
processes (e.g., math and science) and, thus, menial employment
and poverty are viewed as inevitable (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986).
Whether viewed positively or negatively, as in the latter case,
the maintenance of social identity becomes of paramount
importance in refusing to adapt. Finally, biculturalism
addresses dual world interaction. African-Americans who are
bicultural retain their African heritage while adopting white
culture as well. This phenomenon is often cltracterized as
26
Gumperz
27
"walking between two worlds," having "a foot in each world,"
"crossover," and "strad[dling] two worlds" (Page, 1986; Morgan,
1985). Such characterization stems from the need to meet the
cultural expectations of two groups perceived as so different
they may as well occupy (and, ironically, once did) separate
hemispheres.
This continuum does not apply to all interlocutors engaged
in interaction. This social identity continuum reflects choices
made by the African-American interlocutor during interaction with
whites. Particular consequences are associated with each of the
choices plotted along the continuum. As the amount of adaptation
to white culture increases, the risks to social identity increase
as well. Therefore, the positions along the continuum can also
be interpreted as representing being oneself (maintaining racial
social identity), compromising self, sacrificing self, and
denying self. Ironically, an analysis of the consequences
associated with the four options reveals all four represent a
"no-win" situation for members of this subordinate minority
group.
Consequences. Biculturalism, racelessness, and passing are all
adaptations which increase the likelihood of economic success for.
African-Americans. These adaptations can be characterized as a
means to escape the societal ostracism and poverty associated
with those who refuse to adapt (Cayton & Drake, 1946; Edwards &
2°
Gumperz
28
Polite, 1992; Fordham, 1988; Ogbu, 1990). However, it is
important to note economic success is, at best, tenuous.
According to Ross, Rothman, and Wilson (1973) positive race
relations are not necessarily fostered when Blacks begin to
compete with whites in areas (jobs, housing, etc.) once
considered the prerogative of whites.
Bicultural adaptation depends upon how effectively African-
Americans can walk between two worlds. Ironically, economic
success depends, not on the African-American interlocutor, but on
his/her white counterpart's willingness to cooperatively
participate in overlooking African heritage (Davis & Watson,
1982; Edwards, 1987).
Successful racelessness, and the corresponding economic
rewards, are also dependent upon the willingness of whites to
accept and embrace the African-American's use of the prosodic and
lexical cues of the dominant white culture. Although there is no
significant difference in economic consequences between the
bicultural and racelessness adaptive moves (because skin color
can, in fact, be seen), the two are distinct in another way.
This distinction derives from the willingness of the African-
American to acknowledge the tenuousness of his or her
circumstances due to the tendency to deny the existence of
systemic racism. In the case of racelessness, the tentative
nature of success often is not acknowledged as the existence of
2)
Gumperz
29
systemic racism is denied (Fordham, 1988).
The likelihood of economic success is increased
significantly for those African-Americans with the physical
phenotypes which allow them the option of "passing" for white.
According to Cole, being perceived as a member of the dominant
racial group has obvious advantages in terms of social and
economic mobility (cited in Rothman et al., 1973). However,
despite the increased likelihood of financial success and social
acceptance, risks are still associated with this option. One
risk is the complete loss of African-American social identity
which can result from denying one's heritage. A second risk is
the revelation of one's racial heritage among whites [per Cayton
& Drake (1946) African-Americans are less likely to betray the
racial identity of group members who are attempting to pass for
numerous reasons] which then takes precedence over physical
phenotypes (Pettigrew, 1979; van den Berghe, 1978). The
consequences of being identified as Black after denying such
racial identity can significantly complicate the psychological,
physical, and financial well-being of the African-American who
once was able to "pass."
Finally, of course, refusing to adapt also results in a
particular set of consequences. Unlike their bicultural,
raceless, and passing counterparts, African-Americans who either
refuse to adapt, or are discouraged from adapting, are blocked
30
Gumperz
30
from even the tenuoPs economic resources attainable by their
peers. Upward mobility is virtually impossible. Thus, poverty
and ostracism by the dominant racial group are the consequences
of maintaining social identity.
What is the price of adaptation and harmony? For the
African-American, it is a high price indeed - self-denial,
severed kinship ties, feelings of deficiency, and the need to be
"ameliorated, remediated, or otherwise altered" (Edwards, 1987;
Edwards & Polite, 1992).
Conclusion
John Gumperz' work is important in its move toward the
development of sociolinguistic theory. He pushes students of
language and communication closer to systematically interrelating
propositions and creating new sociolinguistic theories capable of
explaining the corumnicative complexities of encounters between
heterogeneous coups. It is inappropriate simply to characterize
his work as involving the establishment of taxonomies as his work
appears to begin rather than end with taxonomies.
For instance, when investigating code-switching, Gumperz
notes "a list of functions cannot by itself explain the
linguistic bases of a listener's perceptions and how they affect
interpretation" and, although Gumperz does not offer an
explanation, he does proceed to note the difficulty in
postulating extralinguistic social factors and background
Gumperz
31
knowledge affecting switching. He also provides a list of
confounding variables which must be considered when attempting to
offer an explanation of a listener's perceptual and interpretive
processes. In addition, Gumperz uses networks in a speech
community to explain why a group might adopt code-switching
rather than total adoption of another group's language. He
maintains that networks, and their corresponding system of
membership expectations, play an integral role in the adaptation
of language to include code-switching or alternrition. In
investigating code-switching in this way, Gumperz does more than
simply provide a taxonomic description; he moves in the direction
of theoretic explanation.
In this paper, we have tried to point to an area which
Gumperz' approach does not emphasize, an area that we feel would
significantly strengthen his program. By not explicitly
recognizing the cultural value talk has for groups of people
Gumperz fails to address the broad implications of people
changing the way they speak. In addition, without the explicit
recognition of the social inequities present in encounters
between heterogeneous interlocutors, Gumperz presents a proposal
for conversational negotiation that begins at an unrealistic
neutral point.
Gumperz also does not recognize many of the non-linguistic
contextualization cues that can greatly influence interaction
Gumperz
32
between both heterogeneous and homogeneous interlocutors. The
African-American experience in the U.S. serves as an example of
the implications of changing talk for a group of people, and the
non-neutral starting point of conversations implicit in any
social context. In particular, the African-American experience
illustrates how non-linguistic cues come to bear on interaction.
In many ways, Gumperz' analysis goes beyond the work
traditionally performed in discourse analysis, conversation
analysis, and ethnography. His work also goes beyond the
creation of taxonomies and might, ultimately, lead to the
development of new sociolinguistic theory regarding problematic
interaction. The :likelihood of the development of theory will be
significantly impacted by efforts to: 1) incorporate, rather than
ignore, the pact of race on interactions involving heterogeneous
interlocutors, and 2) re-evaluate the significance of a speech
community's way of speaking and the corresponding costs
associated with adaptation.
ran
Gumperz
33
References
Cayton, H.R., & Drake, S.C. (1946). Black metropolis. London:
Jonathan Cape.
Chick, J.K. (1990). The interactional accomplishment of discrimi-
nation in South Africa. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural
communication and intercultural contact (pp. 225-252).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davis, G., & Watson, G. (1982). Black life in corporate America.
Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.
Deutsch, K.W. (1952). On communication models in the social
sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16, 356-380.
Edwards, A. (1987). Crossover dreams. Essence, 17(11),
45, 112, 114.
Edwards, A., & Polite, C.K. (1992). Children of the dream: The
psychology of black success. New York: Doubleday.
Ensink, T. (1987). Interpretative processes in discourse.
Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 517-531.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper:
Social interaction in interviews. New York: Academic Press.
Fordham, S. (1988). Racelessness as a factor in black students'
school success: Pragmatic strategy or pyrrhic victory?
Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 54-84.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J.U. (1986). Black students'school
success: Coping with the "burden of 'acting white'". The
3
Gumperz
34
Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.
Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58), New York:
Academic Press.
Gumperz, J.J. (1979). The retrieval of socio-cultural knowledge
in conversation. Poetics today, 1, 273-286.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982a). Discourse strategies. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982b). Language and social identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (1974). Ways of speaking. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer
(Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp.
433-451), London: Cambridge University Press.
Isajiw, W.W. (1974). Definitions of ethnicity. Ethnicity, 1,
111-124.
Littlejohn, S.W. (1989). Theories of human communication (3rd
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Morgan, T. (October 27, 1985). The world ahead: Black parents
prepare their children for pride and prejudice. The New
York Times Magazine, 32-35, 90, 92, 96-99.
Murray, S.O. (1991). Ethnic differences in interpretive conven-
tions and the reproduction of inequality in everyday life.
Symbolic Interaction, 14(2), 187-204.
Ogbu, J.U. (1990). Minority education in comparative perspec-
1.
Gumperz
35
tive. Journal of Negro Education, 59(1), 45-57.
Page, C. (Ed.). (1986). A foot in each world: Essays and articles
by Leanita McClain. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Pettigrew, R.G. (1979)'. Race relations. In D.L. Sills (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 269-
277). New York: MacMillan
Rose, Rothman, & Wilson. (1973). Through different eyes: Black
and white perspectives on American race relations. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, A., & Davies, C. (1990). Cross-linguistic communication
missteps. Text, 10(4), 385-411.
van den Berghe, P.L. (1978). Race and ethnicity: A socio-
biological perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1(4),
401-411.
Yamada, H. (1990). Topic management and turn distribution in
business meetings: American versus Japanese strategies.
Text, 10(3), 271-295.
Zetterberg, H.L. (1963). On theory and verification in
sociology (rev. ed.). New York: The Bedminster Press.
Zetterberg, H.L. (1965). On theory and verification in sociology
(rev. ed.). New York: The Bedminster Press.
